Publisher

The length of the papers: max 15 pages (about 5000 – 6000 words).

The editor of the IESS 2022 proceedings will be EDP Sciences

The proceedings will be published under a CC license by EDP Sciences on the Web of Conferences platform where the IESS 2.1 proceedings can be downloaded. 

The paper must be formatted according to the EDP guidelines and be submitted on the EASYCHAIR platform by means of this link: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=iess22

Every IESS 2.2 accepted paper will receive a special DOI name and be indexed Clarivate Analytics, DOAJ, Google Scholar, and ProQuest.

Rules

– Every accepted paper must be reviewed by at least 2 reviewers, who have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject of the paper

– One person can be the co-author of up to 2 accepted papers in the IESS 2.2 conference

– The leader of a track can decide the maximum number of papers which can be submitted

Checklist for paper evaluation

Problematic

  • Did the authors indicate what’s the issue/problem?
  • Was the literature review/ theoretical background information provided adequate to understand the objectives/purposes of the study?

Originality and scientific contribution

  • Did the authors explain why the study was undertaken?
  • What are the issues to be resolved/investigated or constraints to overcome?
  • What are expected outcomes/newness/innovativeness of the study?

Method

  • Was the selected method pertinent for the study?
  • Have the authors argued for their contribution to explore the investigated domain?
  • Have the authors placed their contributions within the framework of Service Science?
  • Have the authors indicated clearly the potential limitations of the method used?

Results

  • Have the authors indicated clearly the type of research (e.g., exploratory, experimental, theoretical, application, review, etc.)
  • Did the authors explain the technical correctness (theoretical / experimental)?
  • Were the explorations / experiments / implementations / deployments / validations done appropriately with respect to objectives/purposes of the study?
  • Did the authors sketch the way how to put their conclusions into action, considering, for instance, deployment, skills, digital implementation, resources, processes?

Discussion

  • Were the objectives/purposes of the study met?
  • Have the authors discussed the results in relation to the related work?
  • Did the authors clearly indicate the concluding remarks / what’s next?

The Flyer of Call for papers can be downloaded here